SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

MilleniumForce

A lot of the main criticisms for Spectre come from the plot twist, and not many people are happy about it. However, I think there are some positives to be found from it.

1. It's not a plot twist.
A plot twist is a change in the story turns the story around. The reveal of Oberhauser being Blofeld, however, is not a plot twist, nor is the fact they used to be adoptive brothers. It doesn't change how the rest of the movie will turn out. It's a revelation of his new name and how he knows Bond.

2. The Blofeld name reveal means nothing to Bond.
Yeah, think about it. The reveal only means anything to the audience. The name means nothing to Bond, it's just another name. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference to him that this 'new' character Blofeld is his adoptive brother.

3. It makes Blofeld seem more psychopathic.
Blofeld has done all the events in the last three movies just to taunt Bond for being liked by Oberhauser's father more. That's just crazy.

4. He really isn't the Blofeld we know.
The Blofed we knew before this - he really was Blofeld. OBERHAUSER is the equivalent to the Blofeld decoys in DAF. His real name is not Blofeld. His name is OBERHAUSER, Blofeld is just a false identity.

5. It actually gives him a motivation.
Blofeld has no motive in the previous timeline. He just does what he does for money. Here, there's actually a reason why he does it, and big villains like Blofeld need a proper motive

6. It gives the character more depth.
Maybe it's not the best character backstory for Bond's arch enemy, but it does give him a backstory and that is what people want in modern movies

7. It makes up for the fact that there is no main villain plot in the movie.
Yeah, think about that. C's story of the surveillance programme is just a side plot. Blofeld doesn't actually have a big villain plan in this movie. The whole movie is just introducing the Blofeld character into the new timeline.

8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.

Matt S

MilleniumForce wrote:

8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.

This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!

chrisisall

Thank you MilleniumForce for making complete & utter sense of all this so succinctly! Best post I read all day! {[]

Thunderpussy

-{ Very interesting reading, plenty to think about.

Chriscoop

Skyfalls db5 was always tenuous given that bond won it in a poker game, it was just put in for the 50th anniversary I think.
It become quite clear Mendes doesn't consider continuity particularly relevant.

chrisisall

Chriscoop wrote:

It become quite clear Mendes doesn't consider continuity particularly relevant.

The main thing he & I share apparently. :007)

Thunderpussy

But have you been consistent in that view?

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

But have you been consistent in that view?

I am consistent in my inconsistency.

Lady Ice

MilleniumForce wrote:

6. It gives the character more depth.
Maybe it's not the best character backstory for Bond's arch enemy, but it does give him a backstory and that is what people want in modern movies

I don't think the desire for a backstory is a modern phenomenon; I can see that there is now a trend in films to make 'trivial' genres more like dramas (for example superhero films no longer being completely geeky). All decent actors will give their characters a backstory but I felt this one was too pat. I agree that the film's purpose is mainly to embed Blofeld into the Craig era as Skyfall embedded new M and the reintroduction of Q and Moneypenny. Q and Moneypenny only really came to life in Spectre so we won't really be able to judge long-term how well Blofeld will go down until we see the next film. It also means that hopefully all the elements are in place because Skyfall sets up for Spectre and Spectre sets up for the next film, so we really don't want another set-up movie.

blueman

Yeah, how about a plain old Bond mission?

Hardyboy

Good reasons, MillenniumForce. The Craig Quartet has entirely rebooted the entire Bond universe, and you provide some solid foundations for taking the new Blofeld on his own terms.

Chriscoop

Blofeld had to be introduced somehow, and bringing him into a backstory is as good a way as any I suppose, we never did get to the main man of quantum and that was left dangling, IMHO it would not have worked to have a Blofeld of old back anonymous, sitting behind a desk, as much as it adds suspense I was always waiting for a big reveal with the original Blofeld which was the reason behind never seeing his face, in the end there was no reason to hide his identity.

Harry Palmer

The problem of Spectre was never the plot twist (that is not a plot twist). It is a constellation of missteps along the following lines:

a. The director and writers cannot conceal their belief that the Bond mythology has become irrelevant, and one must be apologetic about making/enjoying a movie about a hired government killer;
b. The film mistakes personal stakes for character depth, and character depth for intelligent writing (news-flash: emotional maturity and intelligence have nothing to do with dime psychology)
c. The villain's motive is offensively stupid, and already quite tired.

martini

It wasn't really a twist at all. The "oh it was all me, James" was rather weak. No reaction from Bond, and no reasons really given by Blofeld. It could have been so cleverly been delivered, letting unravel things for themselves, but no

"it was all me"

"Oh, OK m8"

I actually really didn't like SPETRE and see it as the worst craig era film. CR > QoS > Skyfall > SPECTRE for me. Which is good, because I can then watch them in order.

sniperUK

Not a twist ,just "Luke I am your father" "Austin I am your brother" stupidity .

chrisisall

sniperUK wrote:

Not a twist ,just "Luke I am your father" "Austin I am your brother" stupidity .

I understand the comparison, but it's not really like that (for ME, anyway).

Matt S

chrisisall wrote:

sniperUK wrote:

Not a twist ,just "Luke I am your father" "Austin I am your brother" stupidity .

I understand the comparison, but it's not really like that (for ME, anyway).

For me, Blofed's connection to Bond is is like Dr. Evil being Austin Power's brother. And this was after Daniel Craig talked about all the things Bond couldn't do because of Austin Powers! The "No, I am your father" line from Star Wars still holds up.

chrisisall

Matt S wrote:

The "No, I am your father" line from Star Wars still holds up.

Sidebar: there was a great exchange in the series Dark Angel concerning this:

MAX: About last night...

LYDECKER: Don’t remind me. I still feel sick.

MAX: Me, too. Got a bad feeling you were going to tell me...you were my...

LYDECKER: Father? I would never presume to pollute the gene pool.

MAX: I can’t tell you what a relief that is for me. I mean, what a cliché that’d be, huh?

fire and ice

I dont have a problem with Bond and Blofeld having been step brothers, its just the film fails to establish any kind of connection between them for me. Like others have alluded to, its throw away.

Chriscoop

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance? Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

zaphod99

Lady Ice wrote:

MilleniumForce wrote:

6. It gives the character more depth.
Maybe it's not the best character backstory for Bond's arch enemy, but it does give him a backstory and that is what people want in modern movies

I don't think the desire for a backstory is a modern phenomenon; I can see that there is now a trend in films to make 'trivial' genres more like dramas (for example superhero films no longer being completely geeky). All decent actors will give their characters a backstory but I felt this one was too pat. I agree that the film's purpose is mainly to embed Blofeld into the Craig era as Skyfall embedded new M and the reintroduction of Q and Moneypenny. Q and Moneypenny only really came to life in Spectre so we won't really be able to judge long-term how well Blofeld will go down until we see the next film. It also means that hopefully all the elements are in place because Skyfall sets up for Spectre and Spectre sets up for the next film, so we really don't want another set-up movie.

Agreed. I am really tired of the stepping stone approach going on for so long. OK, CR was about Bond becoming Bond, QoS was a major mistep ( I know it has its fans here but is derided in the wider world ) Skyfall seemed to reset the template but SP has clumsily shoehorned irrelevant back story to make use of the fact that they can use Spectre again. Here's the thing, no one cares, Bond could not even remember it seemed. Even the title of this thread is apologetic (not that bad) some are even suggesting that the irrelevance to Bond ,makes Blofeld even more sinister as a villain. We need knew thinking and not endless retreads Spectre was fun in its way, not a major triumph, and adds nothing of its own. No more please.

chrisisall

Chriscoop wrote:

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance? Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Matt S

chrisisall wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance? Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

Chriscoop

Matt S wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance? Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

That is my take on it anyway, and this way it makes Blofeld obsessing over it for all those years the one with ALL the issues.
I like it this way, even down to the part in the old mi6 hq when bond sees Blofeld's injury... Bond is mocking and kind of "OK whatever you fruit loop" to the "my scars will heal" statement.

Matt S

Chriscoop wrote:

Matt S wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

That is my take on it anyway, and this way it makes Blofeld obsessing over it for all those years the one with ALL the issues.
I like it this way, even down to the part in the old mi6 hq when bond sees Blofeld's injury... Bond is mocking and kind of "OK whatever you fruit loop" to the "my scars will heal" statement.

But Bond's carefree attitude makes Blofeld seem harmless. It just seems like a feud between two brothers, where one is frustrated and the other doesn't care. The fued would be much more interesting from Blofeld's side.

chrisisall

Matt S wrote:

But Bond's carefree attitude makes Blofeld seem harmless.

To me his attitude reeks of someone not easily distracted by ridiculous minutia when there are serious calculations to be made concerning escape possibilities, routes & manpower to be overcome.

Chriscoop

Matt S wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

That is my take on it anyway, and this way it makes Blofeld obsessing over it for all those years the one with ALL the issues.
I like it this way, even down to the part in the old mi6 hq when bond sees Blofeld's injury... Bond is mocking and kind of "OK whatever you fruit loop" to the "my scars will heal" statement.

It

But Bond's carefree attitude makes Blofeld seem harmless. It just seems like a feud between two brothers, where one is frustrated and the other doesn't care. The fued would be much more interesting from Blofeld's side.

It quite possibly would be more interesting, the villains are often more interesting with their various psychoses and complicated evil plans etc. But in bond we have a man who faces down death regularly and lives by his carefree attitude. Not to forget that Blofeld has pretty much always been a calamitous character. With maybe the exception of telly savalas's rendition. Io me bond comes across as refusing to give rise to Blofeld's issues therefore not giving value to them.

armenianmovieman

Matt S wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance? Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

But Bond did remember him. He noticed the familiar face at the funeral, and he fully realized at the meeting before darting out. Clearly Bond remembers.

I prefer to think of this film as Blofeld's Casino Royale\Batman Begins, as I have no doubt at all in the next one its going to be a more "classical" archetypal villain role with some plan for world domination.

Matt S

armenianmovieman wrote:

Matt S wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

But Bond did remember him. He noticed the familiar face at the funeral, and he fully realized at the meeting before darting out. Clearly Bond remembers.

I prefer to think of this film as Blofeld's Casino Royale\Batman Begins, as I have no doubt at all in the next one its going to be a more "classical" archetypal villain role with some plan for world domination.

Yes, Bond certainly remembers him, but he doesn't care.

Chriscoop

I think this is either intelligence of the fans interpretation or it was purposely done. Bond not being bothered about blofeld makes him the more secure person, along the lines of" OK my parents get killed, I'm sent to live with my aunt, then sent to live with my skiing instructor and his family, I get on fine with him but he's killed by his jealous creepy son.... And it's YOU who has the daddy syndrome complex, jealousy and issues!!! Right OK then your obviously a maniac with bad wiring so get over it already" oberhauser/Blofeld is obviously deranged and Bonds seeming indifference intensifies this derangement, it makes perfect sense to me.

HalfMonk HalfHitman

It's just a matter of Bond not giving him the satisfaction. Which is in keeping with 50 years of 007/villain confrontations. It's still a horrible bit of backstory that adds nothing, but 007's reaction to it is appropriate.